AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari, filePresident Barack Obama delivers remarks on the economy, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington.

The GOP's charges that President Obama favors "socialized" health care run by "big government" are false. President Obama has repeatedly said he wants a market-oriented system and is not proposing a government takeover of health care.

Masterfully, the Republicans have used tools of scare mongering. But we've become hardened to rhetoric that distorts the truth. We are asking our leaders to end the doublespeak and find ways to defray the $1 trillion price tag for this new health plan.

Drug companies have agreed to pay their fair share and will slash costs so government can cut spending on prescription drugs. But even this doesn't support a fiscally sound health plan, so government must impose a new tax on the wealthy to pay for its plan.

However, these new tax levels will be exactly the same as they were under President Ronald Reagan.

Having a new government-sponsored plan would end insurance company practices that deny coverage to the sick and would expand health care for millions of uninsured, regardless of lifestyle choices.

Linda Cummings, Bloomfield

Where's the freedom?

In your editorial "Making a mess of it" (July 26) regarding health care reform, you make the incredibly specious reference to free enterprise and government competition in the health insurance industry.

Since when does the government compete with the private sector? The federal government's function is to promote free commerce, not impede it. What kind of competition are we talking about where one player makes the rules for the other? The government has no entrepreneurial risk when it has the power of taxation.

The federal and state governments have already made the rules for the private sector players. This has led directly and indirectly to rising costs. These costs in turn increase the uninsured rolls. Now the public option proposes to set reimbursement at Medicare levels, while the private players must abide by reserve formulas based on loss ratios. No such regulations exist for the government plan.

From whom will patients seek remedy when the federal board refuses to pay? Who regulates the "public option"?

Competition? Please.

Jerry Kopychuk, Hackettstown

Don't blame GOP

In a recent letter entitled "Party of No," the writer stipulates that "the Republican party is stonewalling the idea of health care reform." Uh, hello, the Democrats hold the majority of votes in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There's no way the Republican minority can hold anything up in Congress.

What's holding things up is a public that is becoming more informed about the real facts of American health care; a public that is more immune to the lies being perpetuated (like there being 48 million uncovered Americans, a bogus number that even the U.S. Census Bureau disputes); and a public that is becoming more vocal in its opinion about President Obama's goal, including the fact that the majority of us do not support it. Democrats should start listening to the people, accept responsibility for their own actions, and stop redirecting blame to the blameless.

Peter Sibilski, Mountainside

Short-sighted opposition

As a patient currently in chemotherapy for an aggressive cancer, I am amazed that some people can be opposed to health care reform that includes a "public plan." Without Medicare -- the government plan that has been in operation for decades, which paid for a necessary surgical biopsy and is now paying for the therapy at the cancer center of my choice -- I would probably be destitute soon if I had to rely only on the private plan whose premiums I paid all these years.

I'm surely not alone. Anyone over 65 who has unfortunately needed health care has almost certainly blessed their access to insurance support from this "public plan." The opposition of younger people, who can safely bet they will be older someday, seems to me curiously short-sighted.

In my view, the most reasonable and effective government insurance program would be a carefully thought-out single-payer plan, which, during these long months of hearings, has been kept off the table by big insurance and big drug companies whose profits leave them lots of money to pay lots of lobbyists.

Those who complain about a vaguely defined loss of freedom under government regulation might reflect that without a public plan, the American public will be free to get very sick indeed.

Alice Mariani, Hillsborough

Insurer errors costly

It was with great interest I read the letter in Reader Forum "Inefficency drives up costs" (July 28). This is the first time I have seen in the media a reference to Blue Cross of New Jersey and its contribution to the high cost of health care arising from its many and large administrative errors.

I know personally one family that received three different communications this past month from Blue Cross indicating they owed money for services rendered. The customer service representative they spoke to admitted there were errors in each explanation of benefits. This is an ongoing problem the family has had for at least 10 years: each time a family member has received specialist services, full coverage has been denied. Ultimately, an appeal has reversed this decision in favor of the family on each and every occasion.

It is hard to understand why this aspect of the high cost of health care has taken so long to get the publicity it needs. Are there no supervisors to look over computerized mailings or is this performance truly a way of increasing insurance company profits?

Brigid Brown, East Brunswick

Disappearing comics

So it's come to this. One more nail in The Star-Ledger's coffin. The Monday edition has shrunk so much it's hardly worth opening. The Scanner has become a mere shadow of its former self and now, the comics. The last bastion of sanity and common sense is being truncated, spread out so that those of us who rely upon them for a modicum of comfort are forced to do with less and search pages for the rest.

I am not surprised, because all around me I can see the crumbling of the old ways and mindless establishment of the new. Technology's insane march through our culture and our lives has replaced what was good and tried and true. It has turned reality into a virtual world where Twitter, Facebook, Digg have become the norm for communication of news.

Kindle and similar devices threaten to seize the printed word and hold it hostage. The primitive satisfaction of holding a newspaper or a book in your hands will no doubt become only a memory.

The comics "are available online," says the Ledger. And another nail is hammered into the coffin.

Barbara Wirkus, Kenilworth

Clean the bill

We must fix the energy bill and save the Clean Air Act. The energy bill that passed the House of Representatives was weakened by industry lobbyists. It repeals the part of the Clean Air Act that limits global warming pollution from power plants.

This rollback will open the door for as many as 100 new coal plants and gives a new lease on life for the oldest and dirtiest coal plants.

The time is now to pass strong clean-energy jobs legislation. This will help jump start our economy and lay the groundwork for America to be competitive in the 21st century. The combined economic and climate crises require urgent action. And Americans continue to support Obama's campaign vision for a clean energy future.